| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alex_d
Joined: 19 Jan 2019
Posts: 419
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
alex_d wrote:
[quote="cbass"]
| calvin83 wrote: |
I think if you stop down a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 to F2.8, there will not be too much different between the otus and the canon/minolta, especially on a camera with 24MP or below. |
preach !
ohh wait .. never mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7568
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2023 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
[quote="alex_d"]
| cbass wrote: |
| calvin83 wrote: |
I think if you stop down a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 to F2.8, there will not be too much different between the otus and the canon/minolta, especially on a camera with 24MP or below. |
preach !
ohh wait .. never mind |
I don't see much different in the center and mid-frame. Let us forget about the edges as I don't care much about them. 
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
_________________
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4015
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| cbass wrote: |
| stevemark wrote: |
Absolutely. Problem is ... I do mainly landscape / cityscapes, and two "Otus size" lenses are covering nearly everything (Zwiss ZA 2.8/16-35 and Sony AL 2.8/70-200). Quality of both lenses is sufficient for large 40x60cm (16x14 inch) calender images.
Try that with a set of Otus lenses ... not even talking about the limitation of the focal length (28/55/85/100) vs 16/20/24/35/70/100/135/200 ...
While I really did appreciate the image quality at f1.4, Otus lenses don't work for my style of working. Same applies for modern medium format lenses BTW.
S |
You probably don't even need a FF setup. |
I have been using (testing) 24 MP APS-C cameras, but didn't like them at all. It's a combination of various properties, starting from handling and ergonomics and ending up with fringing and diffraction issues.
| cbass wrote: |
| 16x14 prints are not large and Calendar paper isn't exactly high end. You could get away with a nice small APS-C setup. |
I'm happy to send you a copy of one of my calendars. You may change your opnion
| calvin83 wrote: |
I think if you stop down a Canon FD or Minolta 50 f1,4 to F2.8, there will not be too much different between the otus and the canon/minolta, especially on a camera with 24MP or below. |
I have been comparing the Otus Apo Distagon 1.4/28mm side-by-side with the Zeiss Distagon CY 2.8/28mm, using the 43 MP Sony A7RII. At the sweet spot of the Zeiss CY (f the performance was nearly identical (apart from CAs and distortion ...), even though the MTF of the Otus of course is much better (indication its performance on 100MP FF cameras would be better than that of the Zeiss CY 2.8/28mm). At wider apertures the Otus was much better than the Zeiss CY 2.8/28mm.
Since most 1.4/50mm and 1.4/55mm lenses have their sweet spot at f5.6 ... f8, and since they usually are quite a bit worse at f2.8, I'm pretty sure the Otus 1.4/55mm will be quite a bit better at 2.8. But that's not based on my own tests, it's just my opinion ...
S
Only at the sweet spot of the Zeiss
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex_d
Joined: 19 Jan 2019
Posts: 419
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex_d wrote:
more photo's (preferably without plants/flowers or a red houses far away in swiss mountains..) !!!
less f/ numbers !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019
Posts: 450
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2023 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
I have been using (testing) 24 MP APS-C cameras, but didn't like them at all. It's a combination of various properties, starting from handling and ergonomics and ending up with fringing and diffraction issues.
|
I can believe that. Many of these APS-C cameras are small and don't have the best grip due to size. Larger lenses on such a small body can become uncomfortable. You can add a metal bracket to address these issues, but then you have a bigger and heaver body of a bigger sensor. Although the lenses should still be smaller in most cases, but that is not always true.
| stevemark wrote: |
I'm happy to send you a copy of one of my calendars. You may change your opnion
|
If you are offering, then I won't refuse. It might change my mind about calendars.
| stevemark wrote: |
I have been comparing the Otus Apo Distagon 1.4/28mm side-by-side with the Zeiss Distagon CY 2.8/28mm, using the 43 MP Sony A7RII. At the sweet spot of the Zeiss CY (f the performance was nearly identical (apart from CAs and distortion ...), even though the MTF of the Otus of course is much better (indication its performance on 100MP FF cameras would be better than that of the Zeiss CY 2.8/28mm). At wider apertures the Otus was much better than the Zeiss CY 2.8/28mm.
Since most 1.4/50mm and 1.4/55mm lenses have their sweet spot at f5.6 ... f8, and since they usually are quite a bit worse at f2.8, I'm pretty sure the Otus 1.4/55mm will be quite a bit better at 2.8. But that's not based on my own tests, it's just my opinion ...
S
Only at the sweet spot of the Zeiss |
From my research the Zeiss CY has a good amount of curvature. I have heard f/11 is necessary to get the corners at optimum. Is that true or is f/8 good enough? I have looked at buying this lens for years and then changed my mind. Performance in the center is extremely high even by modern standards and stopped down the center is among the best of even modern lenses based on the MTF. The corners, however, are a different story, but that is largely due to curvature from what I have read. It also has a descent amount of coma wide open, which could be a deal breaker for some.
The Otus still is probably better at f/2.8. However, by this aperture the differences are small, and you would need to be very picky. Extreme corners are where the differences will be most noticeable. Also, color aberrations.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-milvus-501-4-vs-zeiss-otus-551-4-vs-zeiss-planar-501-4-comparative-lens-review/
The big test for fast 50's is coma and ghosting at f/1.4, especially if you require handheld night photography. Even most modern 50's fall short here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
